Re: On requesting changes (was Re: internationalization issues)

As far as I'm concerned, no need needs to wait on getting IE status
approved to provide feedback. That's what github issues are for...
that's why we're doing this development in the open in the first
place. You do not need IE status or need to be a member of this WG to
open issues on github. I would encourage ANYONE who is looking to
implement who has specific concerns to raise those concerns now.

  https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues

- James

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
[snip]
>
> I believe a few implementers are going to ask for a large amount of
> simplifying changes shortly. In particular, the implementers I've worked
> with (Thoughtworks) have been waiting about a month to have their IE status
> approved, so I'd prefer if they did the change requests directly rather than
> have myself proxy.g
>
>         cheers,
>                harry
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM
> Software Group
>
>
>
>
> From:        Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
> To:        James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "public-socialweb@w3.org"
> <public-socialweb@w3.org>
> Date:        10/22/2015 08:52 AM
> Subject:        Re: internationalization issues
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2015 11:45 AM, James M Snell wrote:
>> I'm still waiting for feedback on what parts of the AS2.0 spec are
>> "obviously too complex". So far the feedback has been far too vague to
>> be useful.
>
> I'll try to get to this next week, but my high-level feedback is likely
> for AS2.0 to be successful everything outside the basic actor-verb model
> and the kinds of metadata in Winer's RSS specs/Atom should be removed
> and put back in Activity Vocabulary.
>
> I also am still strongly against the Activity Vocabulary being a
> normative Recommendation, as it will lead to endless bikeshedding and
> its a Sisyphean task to describe all social interactions using a single
> vocabulary, and the vocabulary should align where possible with
> IETF/microformats specs down to the 'string' level.
>
> And yes, evidence points to AS1.0 being a failure (as well as original
> binding to Atom's XML format). While Atom/RSS had widespread adoption
> amongst end developers, AS1.0, despite being deployed by large sites and
> even Microsoft for a period of time, failed to gain much developer
> mind-share. The situation is even trickier with AS2.0 because *unlike*
> AS1.0, there's no large implementers (outside *maybe* IBM) really
> interested, just the open-source community.
>
>         cheers,
>            harry
>>
>> Given the details in the document Sandro forwarded, I'm retracting my
>> proposal for removing the language map mechanism.
>>
>> - James
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>> Note I forwarded the removal of language tags to Richard Ishida from the
>>> Internationalization Activity.
>>>
>>> The AS2.0 spec is obviously too complex. That being said, I'm not sure
>>> if language tags though are the right thing to delete, I'm assuming our
>>> Internationalization expert, Richard Ishida, will be back with us
>>> shortly.
>>>
>>> On 10/22/2015 08:50 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> There's finally a first draft of W3C expertise on how to design
>>>> technologies which are suitably international
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs-dynamic
>>>>
>>>> It would be splendid for someone to go through this thinking of AS2.
>>>>
>>>>     -- Sandro
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 23 October 2015 17:20:05 UTC